Comments on: DOJ Files Brief Supporting Super-En-Banc in CDT

By: john kowalczyk

john kowalczyk — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 16:26:13 +0000

Does anyone know if there were any briefs filed by the deadline besides the one filed by DOJ? You can reply to:

johnkowal@aol.com

By: Myrtle Beach Attorney

Myrtle Beach Attorney — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 00:31:22 +0000

If you would like to find information about Colorado Springs Real Estate, visit the Real Estate Book, the web

By: Linebacker

Linebacker — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 23:53:44 +0000

Orin, Is this the final, filed version of the brief? The line spacing is off on page 10, and the document author in the PDF properties is “njudish,” a name that does not appear on the filing.

By: Susieber

Susieber — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 14:36:25 +0000

Here is the Wired version of Orin's take: "Obama Wants Computer Privacy Ruling Overturned."

By: CvMe

CvMe — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 14:47:20 +0000

This brief demonstrates the merits of word limits: 4,200 words was plenty to get across the government’s argument. I would imagine Heytens/Dreeben are primarily responsible for it.

Orin, is there an obvious reason that AG Holder isn’t on the brief?

By: A faceless bureaucrat

A faceless bureaucrat — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 14:10:46 +0000

Hyper-protectivity toward internet and computer technologies seems to be the hallmark of the author judge (and current chief judge of the circuit), and I would be surprised if he and the pseudo-en banc panel were able to take a step back from the abyss and remove the technocratic dicta and procedural guidelines from the opinion without being ordered to do so by the entire court or another Court which is not predisposed toward 9th Circuit jurisprudence.

By: krs

krs — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 06:18:12 +0000

I don’t think I have ever seen a brief signed by the SG, Deputy SG, AAG, DAAG, and all of the United States Attorneys in a Circuit. If you’re presently a DOJ official and your name isn’t on the brief, you are probably feeling left out

Sounds like DOJ had a super en banc session of its own… or maybe just a mini en banc. If this case ends up at the Supreme Court, perhaps the signature block will expand further.

By: the federal white collar criminal

the federal white collar criminal — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 21:44:06 +0000

Ah, didn’t see that. Link, for those who want it:

http://volokh.com/2009/11/05/ninth-circuit-considers-super-en-banc-for-comprehensive-drug-testing/

By: Orin Kerr

Orin Kerr — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 21:33:06 +0000

FWCCS,

I explained it in some depth in my most recent post on CDT.

By: the federal white collar criminal

the federal white collar criminal — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 21:16:52 +0000

Orin, it might be helpful to very briefly explain the particularities of review in the Ninth Circuit as background to the procedural move here. As I understand it, when the Ninth Circuit site “en banc,” it doesn’t actually sit en banc, just as a larger panel. I’m sure we could all find out the deal in Ninth Circuit rules, but I’m too lazy.

By: Steve

Steve — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 20:22:58 +0000

I wonder what kind of review and approval process could have possibly been employed with regard to all these various signatories – considering Daniel Bogden’s name isn’t even spelled correctly on the title page or in the signature block.

By: Politics A Definition, “Figures Lie and Liars Figure” « Moonbat Patrol

Tue, 24 Nov 2009 20:21:38 +0000

[...] Pundits Sister Toldjah John Conyers: “I’m tired of saving Obama’s can” The Volokh Conspiracy DOJ Files Brief Supporting Super-EN-Banc in CDT Another Black Conservative Obama Plans to send 34,000 troops to Afghanistan Diary of a mad [...]